Memphis Police Do Home Invasion on Animal Hoarding Charges; Man Killed When He Reacted to Armed Raid by Allegedly Raising His Own Gun


Yet another terrible tale of militarized police tactics gone wrong as armed agents do a forced raid on a Memphis man and shoot and kill him—on a search warrant for being a suspected animal hoarder (and, of course, for according to the police raising a gun when the mini army smashed into his home).

But it was all worthwhile, apparently:

"Inside the house we did find a lot of cats, dogs," said MPD Sgt. Karen Rudolph.

"I've been told there were raccoons, possums, chickens," she continued. 

Well, that could not go on another minute. And according the WMCT-TV report:

Police say the suspected animal hoarder told neighbors he'd go down fighting in order to protect his collection of pets. 

Yep, that's exactly the guy it makes total sense to execute a forced armed raid on, because he has, you think, more animals in his home than the law decides is proper.

Via Radley Balko, author of a forthcoming book on the dangers of over-militarized law enforcement.

Reason on this topic, including much from our former staffer Balko.

NEXT: Obamacare Mandate To Get More Teeth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Won’t someone please think of the, um, possums.

  2. Radley really needs to come home. Besides the fact that nut-kicks, while painful, aren’t quite so painful not coming from him, the comments on his HuffPo articles (and, unfortunately, his blog) make me want to bash my head against the wall repeatedly (which, to be fair, could have the effect of lowering my IQ to the point where I could stand to be a regular HuffPo comment reader).

    Anyways, is this really surprising nowadays? The cops needed to get their rocks off and play with their toys, and they shoot an innocent person. They’ll get a few days’ vacation for the trauma, and nothing else will happen. I’m just surprised they haven’t started charging their victims’ families for the bullets.

    1. I’m just surprised they haven’t started charging their victims’ families for the bullets.

      Bullets are cheap. Cars, however, are expensive.

  3. “Police say the suspected gun hoarder told neighbors he’d go down fighting in order to protect his collection of firearms. “

    1. Note to self: don’t say shit like that out loud.

      Side note: animal hoarder AND gun hoarder? Are we sure he wasn’t a doomsday prepper trying to farm cat milk to make cheese with?

  4. Wait, was he stealing other people’s cats? Otherwise what does “animal hoarder” even mean? Not that there is any justification to an armed raid and summary execution.

    Now sit back and wait for the gun grabbers to use this as an example of why gun ownership is too dangerous.

    1. I lived in a house next to a senile cat lady when I was in grad school. The smell is horrendous, traveling far down the street, particularly if they aren’t cleaning up after the animals. Sorry, this is definitely an externality issue.

      Not that it requires the SWAT treatment, but when you threaten the cops, that’s what you get.

      1. Not that it requires the SWAT treatment, but when you threaten the cops, that’s what you get.

        Except he didn’t threaten the cops.

        Except there was zero evidence that actual harm, even via cat piss balloons, was intended.

        Except “go down fighting” is a pretty common phrase to express one’s willingness to challenge.


        1. You are morally responsible for all foreseeable consequences of your actions, whether intended or not.

          1. So you murdered this guy with your unflagging support of a consequence-free environment for cops in America?

            I can accept that.

            1. He offered the world OTTERS!

            2. He got himself killed by first threatening and then pulling a gun on the cops. And this was during the day, not a midnight raid.

              1. He got himself killed by first threatening and then pulling a gun on the cops.

                So, you now take the word of cops without the slightest hint of skepticism.

                Good to know.

                1. So, you now take the word of cops without the slightest hint of skepticism.

                  Now? He’s always taken the cops at their word. This is not some new thing.

                  1. Actually I’m taking the neighbors at their word. A fact you might have known had you bothered to read the article rather than just jumping to conclusions.

                    1. The only report from directly neighbors in the article are that they “knew he had animals from the sights and smells.” The claim about guns comes from the police, who are reporting what they neighbors allegedly told them.

              2. And the cops provoked this reaction by SWATing him. But the cops are always blameless in Tulpa’s fantasy world.

                I mean, there’s just no way an old man could have been dealt with other than a SWAT team hit-squad, right?

                You know, at least Cytotoxic and Lyle are thirsty for foreign blood.

                1. Be fair, Nutrasweet. Tulpa’s not bloodthirsty. I’m sure he looks forward to when local PDs have their own drone armadas, which leave a lot less mess behind.

                2. The fact that the method of delivering the warrant was poorly chosen does not justify pulling a gun on cops. They hardly provoked his comments to neighbors that he would fight anyone who tried to take his animals.

                  And once again you slander me despite the many, many times I’ve condemned police abuses on these here threads. It’s how you operate, I know, but it’s still discouraging.

                  1. I love it when you get butthurt about being called the authority fetishist you are, Tulpy-Poo. It’s so fucking delicious. Why won’t you take responsibility for these entirely foreseeable consequences? Huh?

                    1. I don’t take responsibility for other people choosing to lie about me.

                  2. It’s how you operate, I know, but it’s still discouraging.

                    Boo-fucking-hoo. You’re the one that takes the police story are face value every fucking time. All we know is that a bunch of people in a “profession” that has been shown time and time again to be riddled with ass-covering and bald-faced lying has told their side of the story and it is completely self-serving.

                    But anyone that doesn’t worship the police deserve it, right? I mean, how dare they?!?

                    1. You’re the one that takes the police story are face value every fucking time.

                      And you’re the one who lies about me most of the time.

                    2. Yes, I have slandered the brave hero who supported a SWAT team crashing in a house because it has an unpassworded wifi router. And defended for hours responding to snowballs with bullets, and kids throwing rocks from too far away to hit anyone being shot by border patrol agents.

                      You are either a moral idiot or evil.

                    3. And SF compounds his slander with more lies. That no one but me will call you on it is expected with the way H&R is devolving into a smaller, more impotent TEAM NOT A TEAM version of the Kos echo chamber.

                      1. The IP address in the first case had been used to issue specific violent threats to police, so they thought they were walking into a potential cop killer’s house.
                      2. The guy who had snowballs thrown at him didn’t fire any bullets or point the gun at anyone, he just drew it from his holster and pointed it at the ground.
                      3. You’re totally making up the “too far away to hit anyone” part, as the BP agent was attempting to make an arrest when he was pelted with rocks from a few feet across the border, where BP isn’t allowed to go.

                      I’m sure you have more lies lined up, and I’m sure your pals will line up to support you. But hopefully newer readers won’t be taken in by your dishonesty.

                    4. Your answer to #1 doesn’t negate his point. Besides, if he’s a wannabe cop killer, why are you going into his house after him, and providing him with targets? Don’t they have any duty to gather more information, to figure out if this guy’s actually threatening cops? I know the answer: they can barely get the address right a lot of the time. And they don’t have to: thank you QI.

                      #2: Try brandishing a pistol in response to a snowball fight (in D.C.!) as a non-LEO and see what happens. Let me know what the food in prison tastes like. That you’re claiming that, “he just drew it from his holster” in any way mitigates his hideous lack of judgment is hilarious.

                      #3: OTOH, you have a point. Rocks can kill, and depending on how the geography of the situation was, and whether the officer was able to defuse the situation by leaving, in a vacuum, I don’t have a problem with responding with deadly force to someone using deadly force against me. On the gripping hand, (since someone really should reference Niven’s Law here) it was as SF states, then there’s no threat of deadly force, so WTF are you shooting?

                      Generally, the people who have something to lose in a lawsuit, are going to lie their ass off to make themselves look better. Therefore, I wouldn’t take either the cops or the deceased’s (were he around to talk) word at face value. It seems you do.

                    5. If you want to argue over the particulars of those cases in an honest fashion, OK, but each of those was a megathread that I’m too tired to relive.

                      But what is clear is that SF misrepresented either my position or the facts of each of those cases, either by commission or omission. Which makes him a stinking slanderous liar whether you agree with my position in those cases or not.

                      To characterize #1 as a raid for an unsecured router, or #2 as firing bullets in response to snowballs, or #3 as shooting kids who were no threat, is misrepresentation of the highest order.

                    6. And ::crickets:: as expected. I guess the bastions of morality at Reason and H&R must have taken a coffee break rather than uttering the slightest peep when someone slanders another poster.

                    7. You are either a moral idiot or evil.

                      Says the stinking liar who can’t make an honest argument. Enjoy what remains of your life as a stinking slanderous liar.

                    8. Enjoy what remains of your life as a stinking slanderous liar.

                      Are you threatening me? Too bad I’m too moral to send a SWAT team to murder you.

                    9. It’s not a threat at all. Humans have a finite lifespan. Look it up on Wikipedia.

                  3. Hey Tulpa, when DSS comes to take your kids away and you say “I will fight this to the bitter end!” should they SWAT you?

                    I don’t know what world you live in where “Fight” automatically means full-on Commando action, but FFS, for most of the sane world, it means “work to avert”.

                    1. Well, we don’t have the exact quote from the guy, but the neighbors said he promised to “go down fighting to protect his collection of animals”, which connotes forcible fighting, not lawsuits.

                      Oh, and “fight” bereft of context usually means a violent confrontation. If someone says they saw two people fighting, the first thing that comes to mind probably isn’t that they were exchanging lawsuits.

                  4. Tulpa, nowhere in the source article does it actually corroborate the cops’ claim that the man pulled a gun on them. The neighbors only confirmed he had a lot of animals, it smelled, and that he’d commented that he wouldn’t go down without a fight.

                    So yes, you are taking police statement as absolute fact in justification of shooting and killing the guy.

                    1. Curious, Juliant, what evidence would you accept as proving that the guy pulled a gun on police?

                      The neighbors only confirmed he had a lot of animals, it smelled, and that he’d commented that he wouldn’t go down without a fight.

                      which is exactly what I was claiming they said (“go down fighting” actually, but close enough).

                    2. Holy fuck, Tulpa. Stop whimpering about Supersandy Vagina and try to screw up some dignity.

                    3. As reported by the police.

                    4. No, as reported by the news reporter. The article doesn’t say “police said neighbors said” it just says “neighbors said”.

                      This selective Cartesian skepticism is getting pretty annoying.

                  5. I don’t see anything in the source article that indicates he pulled a gun. It does say that in the Reason post, but not in the source article.

                    1. A Memphis Police TACT unit forced entry into the home while attempting to serve an animal cruelty warrant on behalf of Memphis Animal Services.

                      “And the homeowner was armed with a gun, pointed it at one of the TACT officers, and TACT officers shot the suspect,” said Rudolph.

                3. Actually, Lyle isn’t necessarily thirsty for foreign blood. On the other thread, he’s actually starting to take a non-interventionist tact. If I understand his argument, he doesn’t understand that military weapons systems injure or kill human beings.

                  1. If I understand his argument, he doesn’t understand that military weapons systems injure or kill human beings.

                    Muslims aren’t human beings. Lyle is a genocidal psychopath, and I hope he doesn’t have kids.

              3. Pulling a gun is a legitimate response when an armed gang kicks in your door. Two cops in plain uniform knocking and waiting to be let in would be the only moral and correct way to do this. If he shoots those two tax parasites, then surround his house and wait him out.

                1. But… But… We should take preemptive strike-force action without first attempting any sort of reasonable dialogue or peaceably trying to assess the situation! Clearly that will result in a more favorable outcome every time.

          2. Am I morally responsible for having a paranoid worldview whereby all police departments, and government functionaries in general, are insanely over over-reactive to even the smallest hint of suspicious activity?

            Is that really the world you expect me to live in?

          3. You are morally responsible for all foreseeable consequences of your actions, whether intended or not.



    2. A typical hoarder scenario is that they can’t say no and end up acquiring lots of animals. At some point the hoarder often becomes overwhelmed and just walks away leaving a house or trailer full of animals.

      In addition to the cruelty concerns, which I realize isn’t an issue for many libertarians, there are public health issues. Animal waste. Unvaccinated animals. Animals with untreated diseases.

      1. And lots of dead animals in the house, in some cases.

        Plus I could totally see the dogs creating their own problems if they barked. One dog having a barking fit occasionally isn’t a big deal; 20 dogs each having an occasional barking fit is hell for the neighbors.

        1. 20 dogs each having an occasional barking fit is hell for the neighbors.

          Agreed, and so this sort of thing would call for a knock on the door by the cops, if need be, and prompted by a citizen complaint. Or, if they’re that scared that the guy’s a psycho, call him up on the phone, and see if they can address the matter that way. Send him a copy of the complaint via certified mail, or hell, use a process server. Or, if you really think he’s the next Randy Weaver, arrest him outside of his home, on charges stemming from the first two things I said to try. You know, things that try to de-escalate any sort of confrontation, yet address the nuisance problems at hand.

          What you don’t do, if you faced any sort of consequences for your actions, is send a heavily-armed gang of thugs into his house. For one thing, it’s much more dangerous for the officers than steps 1-3 above. It’s especially more dangerous for the guy you’re trying to arrest. We still arrest people, don’t we, and prefer that to killing them outright?

          Seriously, if you’re defending the actions of this department, what the fuck is wrong with you?

          1. I’m not defending the actions of the department. I’m stating that the lack of wisdom in choosing the warrant service method doesn’t justify pulling a gun on cops.

            And that the guy was foolish to implicitly threaten cops to his neighbors, who were probably the ones who called the police about this.

            1. Or they helpfully added the details when they were calling in the complaint about their shithead neighbor. Because cops always take neighbor complaints at face value. Anyway, any discrepancy in accounts is something the cops could have cleared up with a phone call or in person interview. You know, police work; not the shit an occupying army pulls. If he mouths off to the cops that he’s going to kill a few if they bust in, well, now you have a different crime to prosecute. But the whole point is to try and defuse the situation first.

              As to whether he pulled a gun, and knew they were cops, all we have is the word of the Memphis Police Department. Who have every reason to lie and little chance that their lie will be found out. If that’s cynical, then they’ve brought it on themselves.

              1. So you think the cops walked in the house and shot the guy just for fun?

                If they find a gun in the dead guy’s hand, H&Rers; will say it was planted. So I don’t know of any evidence that will convince you guys that he actually pulled the gun.

                1. I think they kicked in the door—probably with a few seconds of muffled warning, maybe without any—the guy may or may not have had a gun at hand, one of the cops saw it or thought they saw a gun (or furtive movement, or t.v. remote, you get the idea), s/he shot, or another one did. After that, I’m surprised the rest of them didn’t dump their mags into him. All that we do know is that the guy is dead, one (or more) of the cops shot him, and the cops claim he pulled a gun on them. That’s it.

                  Again, they’ve only themselves to blame for this. If they show such abysmal lack of judgment as to send a SWAT team to roust a hoarder, then I’m not going to give the rest of their story the benefit of the doubt. Intrude into someone’s home and then use their reaction to arm themselves (if that’s what happened) as an excuse to kill them? That’s as bad as dunphy.

                  1. Any how, have fun. I’ve other stuff to do.

                    Such as basking in my very fragile one game pick ’em lead.

                  2. If they identified themselves as cops (and keep in mind this was a daytime raid, so it’s unlikely he was asleep) then yes, arming yourself in response to entry would justify the cops shooting you.

                    1. That’s a mighty big IF.

                  3. He’s reported to have been on the phone with 911 when shot. IF he was a “hoarder” which is a mental illness diagnosable by mental health professionals, not by the news media, the police, or people on an Internet message board, then what you have is a SWAT team taking down an elderly mentally ill man.

        2. Except what was actually found, per later news reports, was ONE dog, THREE cats, 19 bunnies, a hen and a rooster. No possums, raccoons, lions, tigers or bears. No dead animals. None reported to be unhealthy.

      2. A typical hoarder scenario is that they can’t say no and end up acquiring lots of animals. At some point the hoarder often becomes overwhelmed and just walks away leaving a house or trailer full of animals.

        In addition to the cruelty concerns, which I realize isn’t an issue for many libertarians, there are public health issues. Animal waste. Unvaccinated animals. Animals with untreated diseases.

        And…? I’m waiting for where you make the point that this justifies a Special Weapons and Tactics team and not just a bunch of Animal Control officers.

        1. I’m waiting for where you make the point that this justifies a Special Weapons and Tactics team and not just a bunch of Animal Control officers.

          The fact that the guy told neighbors he would fight anyone who came for his animals?

          1. The fact that the guy told neighbors he would fight anyone who came for his animals?

            And that justifies SWAT as opposed to regular cops?

            1. The fact that the guy told neighbors he would fight anyone who came for his animals?

              So call him up. Let Mr. Crazy make the threat over the phone to officers. Meet him in public and have him do it. Then you’ve actually got something to arrest him for.

              What, we’re sending in a SWAT team based on neighbors’ denunciations now? When the fuck did I end up in a Solzhenitsyn novel?

              No surprise you’re sympathetic to this, of course.

          2. If a proper assessment were actually done, and determined that this was indeed a confirmed hoarding case, then it would become a mental health treatment scenario rather than a criminal action case.

            Hoarding is still being debated as certifiable, but is generally accepted as a mental health affliction which requires therapy in order to reign in the actions. Hoarders literally have emotional attachments to the objects (animals in this case), and can have severe psychological damages and anxiety issues if someone tries to just remove their collection all at once. They also typically can’t recognize that they have a problem, and think that they’ve got everything under control.

            This guy could have likely been in genuine fear/panic over having his world ripped away, which would illicit his remarks about going down fighting. The police response was a completely ass-backwards approach, and was exactly the kind of scenario which would have hit every single panic button in a clinical hoarder case. Now, nobody will ever know if the guy was just a kook, or if he really had a problem that needed therapy.

            1. I would be extremely uncomfortable with allowing hoarding in general to become something justifying state intervention of any sort, whether white coats or black uniforms. We should be very skeptical of expanding the reach of certifiable conditions.

              What’s of concern here is that this particular sort of hoarding was harming his neighbors.

              1. Please explain how owning one dog, three cats, 19 bunnies a hen, and a rooster was “harming” the neighbors.

            2. Not sure what you mean by “certifiable” but hoarding disorder is being added to the DSM V as an official mental health diagnosis in May of this year.
              Many people think of their animals as children. Still others value their property and don’t wish to see it seized by a SWAT team.
              Neither being a “kook” or being mentally ill is illegal, as far as I know.

        2. So, how’s that wait going for you, HM? Nice and comfy, eh? Good.

          So, just curious, what of my previous postings here led you to believe that I’d support using SWAT in this instance?

          Sorry to disappoint, HM. Try arguing with the Tonio who actually exists, or at least a Tonio consistent with my posts here.

          IOW, pwned.

      3. Not to worry, he was executed before any cats were neglected, thank Gaia for that!

      4. Yeah, the dead animals, too. Definitely when the hoarder loses it and walks away; often even beforehand.

        1. There were no dead animals in this case.

      5. “In addition to the cruelty concerns, which I realize isn’t an issue for many libertarians…”

        Yes, we are heartless bastards that only care when humans needlessly die due to absurdly overblown uses of force in situations where it is clearly unnecessary.

        But why oh why wont we think of the possibilities of Racoon-flu? Gerbil acne! The offended nostrils of neighbors?? HEARTLESS!! THE MAN HAD TO DIE

  5. Don’t worry; this scumbag got what was coming to him for daring to raise a gun at a squad of armored men bursting into his home.

    2A is all about stopping burglars, not defending yourself from the state!

    1. I thought it was about hunting!

    2. His defense against the state doesn’t seem to have worked out too well, eh?

      1. So what’s your point?

        It didn’t work, so we should abandon it?

        Or perhaps is it that we need bigger guns?

        1. I think we had this discussion a few days ago and it turned into a waste of everyone’s time since no one changed their minds. To summarize, everyone who disagreed with me was wrong. Let’s leave it at that.

          1. I’ll take it that means you went fucking retarded and everyone else was right.

        2. Tulpa doesn’t want anyone hurting his precious state or the brave police officers heroes that murder bullet-hug shut-ins.

          1. He offered the world ODOR!

        3. The teaching moment from this, is not to get in a shootout with a gang of heavily armed men. But if you must, some warning that you’re about to do so would be nice. Ergo, alarm systems, locking gates, barking dogs, hardened front door with spy hole or webcam: all allow you the time to pull your head out of your ass and either resist or see that they’re cops and try to talk those adrenalin-addicted baboons down off their rush. At least get the camera recording to the cloud.

          And call your lawyer, of course. Because if the cops are sending a swat team, you’re going to need one.

  6. It’s oddly comforting to know exactly how I’m going to die.

    1. I don’t think you have enough cats yet. You’re only at ten or so at this point, right?

      1. He saw the hairballs, and assumed they came from when he got the cats wet.

        Despite massive efforts at force-feeding them after midnight however, they have yet to turn into new cats.

        1. He totally got scammed by that old Chinese guy. What a dumbass.

          1. He told me I was not brought upon this earth to get it. What did he mean?

            1. Nothing. Don’t worry about it. The Mogwai are not for you.

              1. Too bad. He grew that long, white, wispy beard and smoked opium for nothing.

          2. Shopkeeper: [Homer has agreed to purchase a Krusty doll for Bart’s birthday] Take this object, but beware it carries a terrible curse!
            Homer: Ooh, that’s bad.
            Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free frogurt!
            Homer: That’s good.
            Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed.
            Homer: That’s bad.
            Shopkeeper: But you get your choice of toppings.
            Homer: That’s good!
            Shopkeeper: The toppings contain potassium benzoate.
            [Homer looks puzzled]
            Shopkeeper: …That’s bad.
            Homer: Can I go now?

            1. I’m Krusty the SWAT Clown and I’m going to kill you.

      2. I have a cunning plan: Arm your pets.

        1. A plan so cunning that it has its own Chair of Cunning Plans at Oxford?

          1. Well, I’m afraid it’ll have to wait. Whatever it was, I’m sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?

    2. If they didn’t say it was Memphis, I would’ve been sure it was you. Are you cross-breeding the kitties and raccoons to make a cute, deadly superbreed yet? And, how many of them are currently residing in your beard?

      1. My new one‘s not very friendly. 🙁 🙁 🙁

      2. I just hope he never crossbreeds raccoons and possums. Because then we’re all dead.

        1. You will note that I specifically left the nasty, ratty little possums out of the whole Dr. Moreau scenario. But, best believe Warty takes animal husbandry seriously. Very seriously indeed.

          1. Nasty??? Am I the only one who thinks possums are cute?

            1. Pretty much.

            2. Once saw a mom in our back yard with a bunch of kids clinging to her back. THEY were cute, but with a kind of terrified look on their faces as mom tried to climb a fence and they were holding on for dear life.
              Adults, not so much.

            3. When I lived in Venice Beach, I once rescued a baby possum that was stuck between the gap in the concrete stairs of my house and the concrete foundation. I was inside, and could see mama possum pacing the fence top, making clicking sounds and looking kind of frantic. I then heard the little possum making clicking noises and kind of mewing back to mama. I located the trapped possum, went into my kitchen and got my big cooking chopsticks. Mama was pissed, and was hissing at me the whole time, but I plucked the possum out of his trap. Mama climbed down the fence and the two were reunited and climbed away up an oak tree.

              I lived in that house for two more years. Everytime I left the kitchen screen door even slightly open, that fucking possum would run into my house. I’d be watching TV, and see him scurry across the living room and hide under a chair. Or I’d go to the bathroom, and he’d just be curled up on my bedroom floor. It was cute.

              1. “We call the big one Bitey.”

            4. Opossums are adorable. Ralph & Kathy have been visited regularly by one who eats their cat food on the back porch, and once came in & curled up in the corner until Millie shooed it away.

              Miniature opossums (used for sleep studies because they’re nocturnal) are even cuter, with their exophthalmos.

              When a mouse grows up it becomes a rat. When a rat grows up it becomes an opossum.

          2. Is that why he’s so concerned about marriage laws in Ohio? Let’s hope to God he never finds out what husbandry really means.

            1. Well, they can’t outlaw for species they don’t know about, now can they? He may be biding his time re. the chickens, but one can only assume cloacas are imminent.

    3. Gladys Kravitz is going to dime you out?

  7. He said he would go down fighting. So clearly the answer was to escalate the situation by beating down his door with guns. You couldn’t have waited until he left his house or anything.

    1. But John…cats!

      Besides, he was probably violating all sorts of IP laws by illegally reproducing various cat-based internet memes.

    2. It doesn’t sound like he left the house much. Plus you have to worry about booby traps or trained attack chimps.

      1. That many cats you have to buy cat food sometime.

  8. “How many of them things you got?”
    “Cats? Several.”

  9. Silver lining: at least they didn’t shoot any of the dogs.

    While I find the SWAT misuse abhorrent, you’ve got to be seriously stupid in this day and age to tell your neighbors (who are the most likely to call the cops for something like this) that you plan to use force against anyone who tries to enforce the law. You’re just asking for the SWAT treatment.

    1. Ah, the dunphy defense – he was a dumb ass who deserved it. You are sinking further into the slime with every passing comment.

  10. So, are taxpayers feeding the cat hoard now? I mean it’s not like they could just shoot those cats on the spot, that would be inhuman.

    1. In most municipalities Animal Control will hold strays, and seized animals for a period of time (generally 7-14 days), then euthanize them if nobody claims them.

      Animal control is funded by license fees on cats and dogs, so it’s not really taxpayer funded in the sense you think. The other activities of Animal Control (removing dead and nuisance animals) are often funded by the public at large, but sometimes subsidized by license fees.

      In some jurisdictions there is no Animal Control or Animal Shelter and private groups (ie, SPCA) do those duties, sometimes receiving govt grants or contracts.

      1. In my jurisdiction, Animal Control is the police. Hence, taxpayer-funded.

        1. Sorta. But there’s a difference between funded out of the general fund, and funded out of license fees levied on specific classes of citizens.

          SLD’s apply of course.

      2. What I’m getting at is that if the police had gone in there and just shot the fucking animals, THEN people would be up in arms.

        1. Well, not up in arms, but there would be fallout.

      3. Since when do cats have licenses?

  11. Well what did he expect was gonna happen? Do you seriously think you can put 28 dogs in one building and expect the police to resist the temptation to come shoot them?

  12. Sooo, I’m getting ads for mail order brides on the sidebar.

    The question is, who are the less psychotic ones? The young Vietnamese girls or the Russians?

    I’m thinking the Russians have an edge because they used to be vikings once and so eat real food.

    1. Nope, the Viet girls will be less volatile, just happy to be here, wanting a stable family life, etc.

      With eastern european chicks, you never know. Might be normal, might be psycho. Total grab-bag.

      1. I dated two Russian women back in grad school (not while I lived next to cat lady). They can be quite bossy. I can definitely understand why Russian men have the stereotype of being domestically violent drunks.

      2. Yeah, but how is their cooking?

        Because my best friend was Korean, and I think I would starve rather than eat Kimchi.

        1. Because my best friend was Korean, and I think I would starve rather than eat Kimchi.

          Your tongue, sir, is a scoundrel!

          Either that, or your friend didn’t know how to make good kimchi.

          1. Seconded – kimchi is a blessing from that poor, unfortunate peninsula.

        2. I’m with tarran here. Kimchi is hideous. The farts from same, doubly so. Judging by the amount of different salts and vinegars at the local Korean supermarket, Koreans will pickle damned near anything. Given the climate of much of Korea, I’m not surprised.

          Bibimbap isn’t too bad, but IMHO, Korean BBQ is way overrated and the Vietnamese have it all over the Koreans, regarding cooking.

          1. Oddly, I like sauerkraut, so perhaps it’s all in the seasoning?

            1. perhaps it’s all in the seasoning?

              Perhaps. Though it’s worth nothing that their are like a billion and one variations of kimchi, so you might have just experienced a particularly horrid variant.

              1. I’ve tried—at the insistence of my GF, who loves radish kimchi, and only radish kimchi—most of the ones at H Mart. And there are a lot; see the comment about Koreans and pickling above.

                Just not a fan. More for you all, I guess.

        3. 1) There’s tremendous regional variation in kimchi, so do try some different kinds before dismissing it.

          2) Vietnamese food is much more delicious than Korean (imo), and really has nothing in common with it.

          Besides, if you’re worried about that, why even think about a Russian? Their food is awful. Hope you like different types of boiled cabbage.

        4. Kimchi is the best thing in the world. You are a terrible person.

      3. “Inside the house we did find a lot of mail order brides,” said MPD Sgt. Karen Rudolph.

        “I’ve been told there were Chinese, Ukrainians, Vietnamese,” she continued.

      4. The problem with asian women though is that they’re all sweet and demure until they believe you crossed them. Then they show you the meaning of word, blood feud.

        1. ^+1000^

    2. You can’t fool us, tarran. You don’t have the money for a mail order bride. It’s funny how being a propellerhead is usually profitable…but not for you.

      1. He can’t even afford cut-rate mail order panties dirtied in an Greek men’s prison.

        1. But you can. Send him some of your extras, you stingy jerk.

          1. Fuck that. I ain’t no altruist!

            1. Just unload your own soiled tighty whiteys and tell him they’re from that Greek Prison.

              1. tarran would know the difference. You don’t want to piss off tarran with panty fraud. Believe me, I would know.

                1. True that, Warty. tarran gets enraged and says he won’t panty down without a fight.


        2. You’re trying to provoke me aren’t you.

          Well it’s not going to work!

          1. Don’t get yer panties in a knot.

          2. You fool! It’s already worked! You committed one of the classic blunders, which is responding to me or NutraSweet in the first place!

            Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…

      2. Layaway maybe? Pick up your bride in 25 years when she’s 45.

    3. I am getting ones for Chinese brides. I thought there were like five guys for every three girls in China. How can there be Chinese mail order brides?

    4. And Russian women are as cold as the weather there.

    5. Are you saying you don’t want someone making you pho and banh mi all the time? If so you may be too stupid to deserve a mail order bride. I’ll take yours and eat all the delicious Vietnamese food.

      1. You know why there are no Canadian mail order brides? Because Canada, that’s why.

        1. Well, all the Vancouver girls I know do seem to be getting scooped up by American men. In comparison shopping for your mail order bride/live-in whore, traditional Canadian cuisine might leave something to be desired relative to other options. But I can definitely put ketchup on mac and cheese with the best of ’em. Any takers?

          1. As long as I don’t have to spring for a center Ice package, sure. And I actually do find Curling oddly compelling.

          2. I dunno. Does you put cut-up hot dogs in your Kraft dinner?

            1. Does me talk English gud?

              1. Otto: Hey, who’s this Warty dude?

                Mr. Burns: He’s either a 50-foot prehistoric ape, or a tourist trap concocted by the Ape Island jaycees. Either way, we’re going ashore.

            2. OF COURSE. There can be many variations on the Kraft Dinner theme. Most only serve to make it more disgusting (canned tuna, grandma? WHY?).

              But, if you don’t know about butter tarts, well, you should probably know about butter tarts.

          3. You’re an extremely confidant and intelligent woman Dagny, I could never live with that.

          4. ketchup on mac and cheese

            Please tell me that’s not a thing.

            And if it’s a thing, please tell me that it was only a vile concoction devised to be eaten by contestants in a gross-out reality show.

            1. It’s a thing, my man. Go watch The Kids in the Hall skit “fattening up my tapeworm” for more evidence.

              1. That’s it. Nukkake Canada from orbit.

    6. I’d say to get one of each, but then your neighbors might tell the police you’re a wife hoarder.

      1. Then don’t marry them! Problem solved.

        1. Then don’t marry them! Problem solved.

          No…because now you get INS involved for having committed visa fraud. (A person who comes on a fiancee visa must marry within 90 days or leave the country.)

        2. Shake: She’s a Chechan prostitute Carl, and you will refer to her as such.

          1. Carl: Look, just don’t cash that check immediately. I wanna make sure that both of us marryin’ her is gonna be, you know, legal.

            Master Shake: Of course it is! What are you kidding me? Santa Claus ain’t legal and he’s around.

            Carl: Well, I guess that makes sense, you know.

  13. It had to be an armed SWAT raid to make sure he did not start flushing the evidence.

    1. You know how hard it is to flush a tabby?

      1. I don’t know, but it would probably get the rust stains out.

      2. Dunno about the flushy thing but gettin a cat down the disposal is fucking combat. The ass of a kitten will fit in the oval of a plunger and in they go, but those big ones turn into velcro when the motor comes on.
        Oh, use welder gloves and run the cold water, fucks up the blades otherwise.

  14. Putting aside the whole point of this excercise in the first place. Would it not tactically make more sense just to grab this guy when he leaves the house to go the pet store or wherever. A couple plainclothes come up beside him and the whole things over like that.

    1. Or at least throw some flashbangs in the house and kill everything inside.

  15. And we really want the war on drugs to end? With all those freed up resources, they’ll be deploying SWAT to take you down if you accidentally pee on the toilet seat.

  16. Im only saddened that he wasnt able to get a shot off and take one of those lowlife coward cops out with him!


  17. This selective Cartesian skepticism is getting pretty annoying.

    sez Mister NUH-UUUUUUH!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.